Accuracy Evaluation and Comparison of 14 Diagnostic Markers for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis

The aim of the present study was to collect published studies and compare the diagnostic accuracy of different markers for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang for relevant studies until April 29, 2020. The revised Qua...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yiwei Feng, Wei Xia, Guangyao He, Rongdan Ke, Lei Liu, Mao Xie, Anzhou Tang, Xiang Yi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-09-01
Series:Frontiers in Oncology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2020.01779/full
id doaj-4b437d23769f439189efe23fc2d89130
record_format Article
spelling doaj-4b437d23769f439189efe23fc2d891302020-11-25T03:45:53ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Oncology2234-943X2020-09-011010.3389/fonc.2020.01779564853Accuracy Evaluation and Comparison of 14 Diagnostic Markers for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-AnalysisYiwei Feng0Yiwei Feng1Wei Xia2Wei Xia3Guangyao He4Rongdan Ke5Lei Liu6Mao Xie7Anzhou Tang8Xiang Yi9Xiang Yi10Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaFirst Clinical Medical College, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaFirst Clinical Medical College, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaKey Laboratory of Early Prevention and Treatment for Regional High Frequency Tumor, Nanning, ChinaThe aim of the present study was to collect published studies and compare the diagnostic accuracy of different markers for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang for relevant studies until April 29, 2020. The revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) values of the diagnostic markers were combined by a bivariate mixed effect model to compare their diagnostic accuracy. We explored heterogeneity through meta-regression. In total, 244 records from 101 articles were included, with 49,432 total study subjects (13,109 cases and 36,323 controls). EA-IgG, Zta-IgG, and Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) DNA load in non-invasive nasopharyngeal brushings (EBV-DNA brushings) have both high sensitivity and specificity, EBNA1-IgG and VCA-IgG have only high sensitivity, and EBNA1-IgA, VCA-IgA, Rta-IgG, Zta-IgA, HSP70, and serum sialic acid (SA) have only high specificity. The bivariate mixed effect model of EA-IgA had a significant threshold effect. Meta-regression analysis showed that ethnicity affected EBNA1-IgA, EBNA1-IgG, VCA-IgA, and EBV DNA load in plasma, test methods affected EBNA1-IgG, publication year affected VCA-IgA, and sample size affected Rta-IgG. There was significant publication bias for VCA-IgA and Rta-IgG (P < 0.05). EA-IgG, Zta-IgG, and EBV-DNA brushings are good diagnostic markers for NPC. The diagnostic accuracy was influenced by publication year, sample size, test methods, and ethnicity.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2020.01779/fullnasopharyngeal carcinomaEB virusdiagnosticscreeningmeta-analysis
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Yiwei Feng
Yiwei Feng
Wei Xia
Wei Xia
Guangyao He
Rongdan Ke
Lei Liu
Mao Xie
Anzhou Tang
Xiang Yi
Xiang Yi
spellingShingle Yiwei Feng
Yiwei Feng
Wei Xia
Wei Xia
Guangyao He
Rongdan Ke
Lei Liu
Mao Xie
Anzhou Tang
Xiang Yi
Xiang Yi
Accuracy Evaluation and Comparison of 14 Diagnostic Markers for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis
Frontiers in Oncology
nasopharyngeal carcinoma
EB virus
diagnostic
screening
meta-analysis
author_facet Yiwei Feng
Yiwei Feng
Wei Xia
Wei Xia
Guangyao He
Rongdan Ke
Lei Liu
Mao Xie
Anzhou Tang
Xiang Yi
Xiang Yi
author_sort Yiwei Feng
title Accuracy Evaluation and Comparison of 14 Diagnostic Markers for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis
title_short Accuracy Evaluation and Comparison of 14 Diagnostic Markers for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis
title_full Accuracy Evaluation and Comparison of 14 Diagnostic Markers for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Accuracy Evaluation and Comparison of 14 Diagnostic Markers for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy Evaluation and Comparison of 14 Diagnostic Markers for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis
title_sort accuracy evaluation and comparison of 14 diagnostic markers for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a meta-analysis
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Oncology
issn 2234-943X
publishDate 2020-09-01
description The aim of the present study was to collect published studies and compare the diagnostic accuracy of different markers for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang for relevant studies until April 29, 2020. The revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) values of the diagnostic markers were combined by a bivariate mixed effect model to compare their diagnostic accuracy. We explored heterogeneity through meta-regression. In total, 244 records from 101 articles were included, with 49,432 total study subjects (13,109 cases and 36,323 controls). EA-IgG, Zta-IgG, and Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) DNA load in non-invasive nasopharyngeal brushings (EBV-DNA brushings) have both high sensitivity and specificity, EBNA1-IgG and VCA-IgG have only high sensitivity, and EBNA1-IgA, VCA-IgA, Rta-IgG, Zta-IgA, HSP70, and serum sialic acid (SA) have only high specificity. The bivariate mixed effect model of EA-IgA had a significant threshold effect. Meta-regression analysis showed that ethnicity affected EBNA1-IgA, EBNA1-IgG, VCA-IgA, and EBV DNA load in plasma, test methods affected EBNA1-IgG, publication year affected VCA-IgA, and sample size affected Rta-IgG. There was significant publication bias for VCA-IgA and Rta-IgG (P < 0.05). EA-IgG, Zta-IgG, and EBV-DNA brushings are good diagnostic markers for NPC. The diagnostic accuracy was influenced by publication year, sample size, test methods, and ethnicity.
topic nasopharyngeal carcinoma
EB virus
diagnostic
screening
meta-analysis
url https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2020.01779/full
work_keys_str_mv AT yiweifeng accuracyevaluationandcomparisonof14diagnosticmarkersfornasopharyngealcarcinomaametaanalysis
AT yiweifeng accuracyevaluationandcomparisonof14diagnosticmarkersfornasopharyngealcarcinomaametaanalysis
AT weixia accuracyevaluationandcomparisonof14diagnosticmarkersfornasopharyngealcarcinomaametaanalysis
AT weixia accuracyevaluationandcomparisonof14diagnosticmarkersfornasopharyngealcarcinomaametaanalysis
AT guangyaohe accuracyevaluationandcomparisonof14diagnosticmarkersfornasopharyngealcarcinomaametaanalysis
AT rongdanke accuracyevaluationandcomparisonof14diagnosticmarkersfornasopharyngealcarcinomaametaanalysis
AT leiliu accuracyevaluationandcomparisonof14diagnosticmarkersfornasopharyngealcarcinomaametaanalysis
AT maoxie accuracyevaluationandcomparisonof14diagnosticmarkersfornasopharyngealcarcinomaametaanalysis
AT anzhoutang accuracyevaluationandcomparisonof14diagnosticmarkersfornasopharyngealcarcinomaametaanalysis
AT xiangyi accuracyevaluationandcomparisonof14diagnosticmarkersfornasopharyngealcarcinomaametaanalysis
AT xiangyi accuracyevaluationandcomparisonof14diagnosticmarkersfornasopharyngealcarcinomaametaanalysis
_version_ 1724509164603965440